Trial Attorney Blog

Since our Atlanta, Georgia personal injury lawyers represent the most seriously injured survivor of the Bluffton University bus accident in March 2007, we have written previously why it is an outrage that seat belts are not required on buses in the United States.
Many of the serious injuries and deaths in the Bluffton rollover crash occurred because the bus had no seat belts–and thus passengers were ejected onto the roadway.
Tonight we were saddened to learn that this preventable tragedy has been repeated–once again. A bus travelling near Hoover Dam in Arizona rolled over, passengers apparently ejected onto the roadway, and seven passengers died.
News reports indicate that the bus was heading north on Highway 93 (a four-lane highway), veered right, and then overcorrected. The bus then apparently crossed the median and rolled over at least once.
The victims were Chinese citizens who had traveled from San Francisco to Las Vegas. When the crash occurred, they were returning from a trip to the Grand Canyon.
It is a “no brainer” that seat belts save lives. Most Americans are amazed that buses and motorcoaches are not required to have seat belts for passengers to use. When a bus wrecks, passengers can often be thrown around inside the bus and even ejected, and death or serious personal injury is a near certainty.
We hope the new administration in Washington puts a stop to this recurring tragedy by mandating that buses have seat belts. Ohterwise, the senseless deaths and horrific injuries will continue.

Continue reading

In addition to representing victims of trucking accidents and automobile accidents, Finch McCranie, LLP also represents victims of nursing home abuse and nursing home neglect. including patients who have sustained decubitus ulcers (bed sores), falls and brutality in nursing homes.

In one case we handled, our client who suffered from Alzheimers Disease was actually struck in the face by one of the caseworkers. When struck the client fell, breaking her hip. She underwent surgery to repair the hip; however, the trauma of the surgery led to her death. Our investigation revealed the “qualified” care giver on the Alzheimers ward, had actually been a kitchen worker just months before she assaulted our elderly client.

While it is important for families to always visit a nursing home before their loved one is admitted and to continue to monitor care once an admissions takes place, some further information can now be obtained from a new system that rates nursing home care across the country. A five-star rating system has been established by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. This federal agency oversees the quality of care in the nation’s nursing homes. You can access the nursing home ratings by clicking here.

The lawyers at Finch McCranie, LLP have seen many different types of injuries result from being in various nursing homes. Some injuries are the result of being assaulted by nursing home staff or other patients and others are the result of nursing home neglect. Recently the family of a man who died four years ago at a Georgia nursing home was awarded $1.25 million after the jury found that the nursing home’s neglect was responsible for his wrongful death. Tucker Nursing Center allegedly provided inadequate care to the man when he was admitted in 2002. Nine months later, he had to be hospitalized for a bed sore that infected his left buttock to the bone, according to his attorney, and ultimately put him in a death spiral. He died in June of 2004.
Elderly people are entitled to basic safety, respect and dignity. If you are someone you love is a victim of elder abuse or nursing home abuse, you have the right to hold the abuser responsible in Court. Finch McCranie, LLP has represented injured Georgians in nursing home law suits and other personal injury suits for over 40 years. For a free consultation, call our Atlanta Office today at 1-800-228-9159.

The personal injury law firm of Finch McCranie, LLP has been representing victims of truck accidents and automobile accidents for over 40 years. We do not advertise on television and have no intention of doing so. Unseemly television advertising has damaged the public image of the law profession. One Georgia senator is trying to do something about it; however, in its present form, it is not likely to pass.

Senator Seth Harp, a practicing Georgia attorney, has introduced a bill in Georgia Senate that proposes to regulate television advertising by attorneys. The Bill, known as Senate Bill 41, or SB41, proposes a new Georgia Statute, OCGA § 15-19-55.1.

The new statute would regulate legal television advertising in Georgia by requiring that the real attorney(s), not actors, appear in the advertisements, require the television advertisement state the city in which the attorney practices in bold type, require television attorneys to “personally consult,” with their clients, require the television attorneys to actually sign the pleadings, and allow a client to declare a settlement void if certain new television advertisement certifications are not signed by both the television attorney and client at the time of settlement. There are other additional provisions.

We have blogged before about the importance of uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage. Because of the economic problems being currently experienced by our Country, such coverage is probably now more important than ever. Many people who are experiencing economic problems are cutting back on expenses. Some people are driving with no insurance. When insurance premiums and bills are received they are ignored. In short, people are taking their chances that they won’t be in an accident while driving without insurance. Those who are violating the law in this regard are really taking no chance at all. While they may be charged with driving without insurance, if they inflict serious injury and/or death on someone due to their negligence, the question arises as who is really bearing the risk of such misconduct. The answer is simple: Innocent members of the public.

The only way that an innocent member of the public can protect themselves against an uninsured driver is to purchase uninsured/underinsured insurance coverage. Such coverage will provide a safety net for the innocent victim of the negligent acts of an uninsured driver. If a driver, who is operating without insurance, runs a stop sign, a red light, crosses the centerline or otherwise is responsible for a serious collision which results in serious personal injuries and/or death, because such a driver has no insurance, the only way the innocent victim of such negligence can be compensated is if he or she was wise enough to take advantage of the availability of uninsured motorist coverage.

Uninsured motorist coverage protects everyone from the negligent acts of third parties and particularly those who are financially irresponsible. In today’s tough economic times, more and more people are acting financially irresponsible particularly when it comes to their duties to the public. Selfishness has always been a problem in human affairs and it is astounding that so many people are able to rationalize that they can violate the law particularly when they are exposing others to tremendous risks should they be involved in a collision.

Our Georgia injury lawyers know that food poisoning cases can result in serious injury, and sometimes death. Just this week, federal officials announced that two Georgia citizens have been poisoned by salmonella found in peanut products and they warned consumers of dangers associated with more than 125 products recalled as part of a nationwide salmonella-and-peanuts Investigation. The Food and Drug Administration said products affected by the recall range from ice cream to pet foods. A list of recalled peanut products is available on the FDA website. The FDA’s investigation has revealed the common denominator among the cases is that all the products contained peanut paste or peanut butter made at a plant in Blakely, Georgia. At least 486 people in more than 40 states have gotten sick since the outbreak began in the fall. Six people have died.
If you or a loved one have been poisoned as a result of adulterated food products, call the product liability attorneys at Finch McCranie, LLP for a consultation.

Georgia injury lawyers are acutely aware of the so-called “tort reform” changes in the law which has limited and in some cases eliminated the rights of victims of medical malpractice. Unfortunately, most Georgia citizens are unaware that since 2005, emergency rooms have been a place where there is no liability for injuries caused by careless healthcare providers. Current Georgia law makes it virtually impossible for an injured patient to seek accountability in the Courts because it requires an injured victim to show by “clear and convincing evidence” that the medical provider acted with “gross negligence”. For three (3) years, some lawmakers from both parties have attempted to pass a Bill that would do away with the “gross negligence” and allow patients with severe cases to go to court. Lets hope that this will be the year that victims of emergency room medical malpractice will have their rights restored.
If you or a loved one have been injured as a result of medical malpractice, call the injury attorneys at Finch McCranie, LLP at (800) 228-9159 to learn about your rights.

Like most Georgia injury lawyers, we are seeing more and more dangerous drug cases being dismissed because of the doctrine of federal preemption. An example of this came to our attention recently. A Kentucky man developed a drug-induced neurological disease after using a gastric reflex drug for years. He filed a lawsuit asserting state law products liability, negligence and breach of warranty claims against both the brand manufacturer and the generic manufacturers of the drug, claiming that it caused him to develop the disease. He alleged the makers of the drug failed to warn him of the long-term side effects of taking it. The drug manufacturers filed a motion to dismiss on the basis of federal preemption. They argued that under federal law, drug labeling is approved by the FDA, and manufacturers cannot unilaterally alter the labeling; thus, stricter requirements by virtue of state common or statutory law would be in conflict with federal requirements. The plaintiff contended that the manufacturers knew or should have known of the adverse affects of the drug and could have proposed a label change to the FDA. He also contended that preemption of his claims would encourage manufacturers to suppress warnings of adverse side effects. Unfortunately, the Court noted that under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, generic approval requires the manufacturer to use labeling already approved for the listed version of the drug. Congress presumably considered the type of arguments advanced as to reasons for not applying preemption, but maintained the same-label requirement. The Court held that permitting state law claims to second guess FDA approved labeling would conflict with federal law and it granted the generic drug manufacturers’ motion to dismiss.
Under the Bush administration, much headway was made by the drug companies, their lobbyist and conservative, big business politicians to effect this type of “back door tort reform”. Lets hope under the new administration, things will change and the innocent consumer will be able to take advantage of the broader protection afforded under most state law.

We read last week about another tragic ending to a police chase case in Atlanta on January 15, 2009. Unlike many other such matters where the death is not worth it from a societal standpoint, this case appears to be an example where the dangers to the public caused by the police chase were warranted under the unique circumstances involved.
Apparently, the police were chasing two men in connection with armed robberies which had occurred near Roswell, Georgia. In one of these robberies, the perpetrators had pistol whipped one of the victims. The other armed robbery also involved aggravated assault. Thus, on this particular occasion, the police were chasing dangerous felons in possession of firearms. Unfortunately, during the chase, the suspects’ car overturned and a juvenile in the backseat was killed. It is not known whether the juvenile was involved in the robberies or was simply in the vehicle by happenstance or through relation to one of the suspects.
In many cases, the dangers to the public presented by a police chase case outweigh the need to apprehend the suspect. It makes little or no sense to pursue a suspect at high speeds in urban areas for a missing taillight or minor traffic offense. When the police are chasing a minor offender when they could inflict serious injury or death on an innocent member of the motoring public, it is hard to justify a dangerous chase. In this case, however, the police were trying to apprehend dangerous felons in possession of firearms who had terrorized other members of the public. In this situation, the police were fully authorized under proper police procedure to attempt to apprehend these suspects notwithstanding the dangers to the public caused by the chase. This, of course, is far different from the cases we have been involved in where we are representing innocent victims killed during a chase where the police are chasing the perpetrators for non-violent minor offenses. In the latter case where the chase itself is much more dangerous to the public than in the suspect being chased, the chase can hardly be justified. In this tragic occurrence which occurred here in Atlanta on January 15, 2009, it appears from the public accounts of this incident that the police were observing proper police procedure and that they were fully justified in attempting to apprehend these dangerous felons. We have no problem whatsoever with such activity because it is in compliance with proper police procedure. Indeed, one of the reasons that we continue to monitor these police chase cases is to stand up for the right of the law enforcement community to engage in police chases where the need to apprehend is great and the need to expose the public to the dangers of the chase is fully justified by the aggravated circumstances involved.

Continue reading

The injury lawyers in our firm have seen over the years that bicycle-car accidents can have serious consequences for the cyclist and often involve death or, at a minimum serious personal injury. A recent verdict demonstrates the kind of traumatic injuries that can occur in a bicycle-car collision. In that case, a jury returned a $1.8 million verdict in a personal injury case brought by a college student. She was seriously injured in 2005 when she was struck by 2 vehicles at an intersection near her campus. The injuries she sustained led to her having several surgeries and the partial amputation of her left leg.
The Finch McCranie, LLC firm in Atlanta, Georgia believes cyclists have the right to hold negligent drivers responsible for the harm they cause. If you have been hurt in a bike-car collision, you should contact a Georgia bike accident injury attorney at Finch McCranie, LLP. We have helped Georgia accident victims with the compensation they deserve since 1965, and we are committed to providing personalized service. For a free consultation, call us at 1-800-228-9159.